Science vs Religion

[Crator]

I have. I grew up in a southern baptist church. I've heard all you have said before.

[Traak]

The Bible consists of many first-hand accounts written by people who were there when those things happened. Did you think we just waited until last year and printed us up an approximation of what we figure should have happened?

And, how about people in history that don't have any portraits of themselves? Since that kind of evidence seems to matter to you? No one in history has existed but people who have had a portrait painted?

We have the descendants of Abraham with us to this day: **** and Arabs. The **** from Isaac, the Arabs from Ishmael. **** can trace their genealogies back for millenia. Does that make them more real than George?

But, these things are not the root issues. The root issue is and always has been whether people want to accept God's lordships and rulership of their lives, or create their own set of rules, whether a false religion or a non-religion, and follow that instead. Adam was the first to reject God's rule. He sure wasn't the last.

The central issue always boils down to this: believe on Jesus Christ and confess his lordship, or don't, and use whatever excuses you choose to justify it. Everything else is just a different wrapper. Jesus loves you.

[Evilmp]

Originally Posted by Traak

And people have a free will, and they can do that. It's their choice. Often it becomes all elaborate,
with charts and graphs, and whatever, but the root thing is still a choice.

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead
 and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are
 to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the
 people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they
 took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

 13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So 
the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been 
spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

 15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 
And the elders of the assembly said, “With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide 
wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs,” they said, “so that a 
tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can’t give them our daughters as wives, since we 
Israelites have taken this oath: ‘Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.’ 19 But look, 
there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, which lies north of Bethel, east of the road that 
goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”

 20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the
 young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you 
seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or 
brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not 
get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not 
give your daughters to them.’”

 23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one 
and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and 
settled in them.

 24 At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own
 inheritance.

Judges 21:10-24 NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+21%3A10-24&version=NIV

A choice between kidnapping, rape and murder,

or living peacefully without fear of a totalitarian overlord watching me sleep?

No book is needed for morals. Morals are innate, and I can tell these texts are the definition of evil. Now, it's your turn to give ground by saying the bible's stories aren't exactly true so you can pick and choose which ones you want to believe.

How much do you want to bet he'll choose the ones that don't involve rape?

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Traak

Right. It's a theory. Which proves, by the fact that it is a theory, that it does not have enough proof to demonstrate that it is a fact.

So why do people believe it as if it is a fact?

The fact that gravity is a theory does not prevent the motion of the planets in their orbits or protect your head when you fall of a ladder. That gravity exists is undisputed. What is in doubt is the exact mechanism behind it. We have good approximations, but they are still just approximations.

The theory of relativity is just a theory. It doesn't change the fact that relativity must be accounted for in order to make your GPS work. It just means that our understanding of relativistic motion is incomplete. It is a good approximation of the truth in most circumstances, just as newtons laws of motion(law is a colloquial term no longer in use by scientists) are a good approximation of motion at slow speeds where not a lot of precision is needed.

Evolution is a fact, the same as gravity and relativity. Life does change over time, significantly so, due to a variety of pressures. It is supported on the micro scale by direct observation, and on the macro scale by numerous examples of fossil records showing step by step how organisms changed, genetic studies showing how animals are related, and in your own body.. You yourself have vestigial organs. There are vestigial nictitating membranes in your eyes. Touch your pinky and thumb together then bend your wrist in. That tendon? That does nothing for you. Its commonly scavenged in order to repair other tendons around the body in surgeries. Its the tendon that extends claws. You may not have it though. We're in the process of losing it, just as only some can wiggle their ears.

The theory of evolution means that we have an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms driving evolution.

[MadPenguin]

What evidence do you have that there was ever a George Washington? Written history.

You believe many things that are just words in books. Without having ever been there or met anyone who was. That's evidence enough, isn't it? Take evolution, for example. People believe in evolution. They say they have evidence. But, unearthing a skeleton, or just a tooth, and stating that it proves evolution? Were they even there when it happened?

Evidence. I'm not almighty. I can't find everyone who has ever gotten healed by God, everywhere. As I said, ask God for evidence. He's almighty, he'll be glad to help you out. If he doesn't, well, then you're off the hook. But to ask a finite servant of an infinite God for evidence of something that you could just as easily ask the infinite God for? Why? So if I don't provide it, you have your excuse not to believe?

You dont seem to understand that extraordinary claims require at the least SOME evidence.
If you meet up with your mate and he says he walked to meet you, he doesnt need to provide you with evidence for you to accept this, though he could be lying. It doesnt matter. However, if he claims he flew without the aid of technology first, then walked over water for a little of the distance and teleported the rest, you would rightly be dubious. This kind of claim (the kind that goes against the laws of the universe) DOES require some evidence for you to believe it.
The claim "George Washing existed" isnt in violation of any of the laws of the universe, saying you can heal people through God or that God can speak to you or that natural disasters only began once humans began sinning are extraordinary claims that DO require some evidence for belief, especially since we have good reasons not to believe these things.
This applies to pretty much everything you have said in your last few posts. "Blind faith" as you put it isnt needed, you just need probability for things like checking the road etc.

Go to the source. Bypass the disciple, and talk to the Master. He's open 24/7. If God doesn't respond to someone who is sincerely interested in knowing if He exists, then he doesn't.

I was born and raised a christian and only became atheist at the age of 18, i often did talk to God and pray to him, he never answered my prayers or spoke to me and i had genuine interest in knowing him. So then you will admit he doesnt exist?

Right. It's a theory. Which proves, by the fact that it is a theory, that it does not have enough proof to demonstrate that it is a fact.

So why do people believe it as if it is a fact?

The idea that we orbit the Sun is ONLY A THEORY. It cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, just like we cant prove that really this entire reality isnt just a figment of my imagination, or like we cant prove faires arent real. By that reasoning, NOTHING can be called a fact. But this isnt a useful stance to take, so we just call things fact when we have overwhelming reasons to believe them.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Traak

What evidence do you have that there was ever a George Washington? Written history.

The American Revolution. American independence. Portraits for which he sat, all showing the exact same thing. His personal papers and belongings. His grave.

Oh, and about eight thousand people who are related to George Washington. Our first president didn't have any children himself, but his other family members did. There's a guy in San Antonio Texas whose family bears the name Washington and they count George's brother Samuel as direct descendants. Also, Hillary Clinton is a cousin (albeit like six or seven times removed) of George Washington, as are the Bush presidents. In fact, a genealogist study determined that all US presidents (including Obama) are related at some point. Granted, most of these are like tenth cousins with a lot of times-removed. Which can be said for a lot of people in the world.

None of this is really important. Fact of the matter is, ample physical evidence exists - living, deceased and/or inanimate - to prove the existence of George Washington. But I don't see many people running around claiming to be a third cousin six times removed of the Almighty. Yes, people say "I'm a child of G'd" but they aren't blood relatives. Some attempts have been made to trace the actual blood lineage of Jesus, in spite of the fact that the Catholic church and other religious institutions adhere to the strict doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin - a notion which is extremely laughable. Note that this is not the lineage that comes from Jesus' loins, which is typically garbage perpetuated by hacks like the guy that wrote "Da Vinci Code". This would be from so-called cousins and half-brothers.

The thing that pisses me off the most about Christianity is that many works have been suppressed due to having been judged as "non-canonical" or apocryphal or outright heretical. Anything that did not fit with the Council of Nicaea's definition of Christianity, anything that cast doubt or outright changed anything they had written, was either destroyed or suppressed. A lot of these apocryphal texts are allegedly in the Vatican somewhere. Whatever Early Christianity was, it was changed by that Council. Which was a bunch of men, motivated to form a religion and keep it following a singular path.

Unfortunately, modern science and technology have shown a high number of inaccuracies. And when you cast doubt upon one single aspect of something that is upheld as an ironclad case, it calls into question everything else.

Originally Posted by Traak

The Bible consists of many first-hand accounts written by people who were there when those things happened.

Maybe in the New Testament, and only up to a certain point. Some of the New Testament comes from letters written by people. The Old Testament, however, comes from an untold amount of anonymous texts, all of which have been heavily edited prior to reaching "modern" times. Genesis and Exodus were not written as eyewitness accounts. The Christian Old Testament comes from the Tanakh, which defines Judaism as you and I know it. The Tanakh, for those of you who don't know anything about my religion, consists of three parts - the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim.

A comparison by New Testament scholars was made between the seven major critical editions of the Greek New Testament, verse-by-verse. Guess what? Less than 65% of the verses were found to be variant-free: meaning, over 35% of the verses in the seven major New Testaments do not match with each other.

Originally Posted by Traak

Did you think we just waited until last year and printed us up an approximation of what we figure should have happened?

Not last year, no. At the Council of Nicaea, in AD 325, your Christian leaders got together to figure out what parts of the Tanakh and what letters, documents, and scrolls throughout the last four hundred years should be compiled to achieve consensus. How much truth did they conveniently erase or ignore, just to achieve consensus and compromise?

YOU CANNOT COMPROMISE ON THE TRUTH. Either it did happen, or it did not. There is no middle ground.

In other words, a lot of stuff was changed, edited, redacted, or outright discarded in order to fit a version of history that doesn't match with historical documents from elsewhere. They created their own brand of history (history is written by the victors) that, until the rise of Protestantism, was unchallenged and unrivaled.

[Quovatis]

There are no first-hand accounts in the new testament. Read the preface in any good bible and it will tell you that. The gospels are not written by the person they are named after. They were written many years afterwards based on second-hand accounts.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

There are no first-hand accounts in the new testament. Read the preface in any good bible and it will tell you that. The gospels are not written by the person they are named after. They were written many years afterwards based on second-hand accounts.

Your first part is correct, but the last bit is not. Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus was crucified or thirty years or even seventy years later, the fact is they were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses by someone who directly recorded their testimony. If the events that are described in the gospels are not true, those who knew better had the ability to speak out against their reliability. Additionally, Roman officials who were not supportive of the rebellious nature of Jesus' words had every reason to speak up and discredit the authors of Biblical material. That they did not do so, that a mighty empire was not able to discredit something which would tear it apart, tells its own tale. Furthermore, the original witnesses and those who transcribed original eyewitness accounts had everything to lose - family, friends, livelihood, homes, even lives - by writing what they did. The Roman Empire was not a forgiving entity as it pertained to treason, sedition, and rebellion.

[CutterJohn]

hat they did not do so, that a mighty empire was not able to discredit something which would tear it apart, tells its own tale.

Yeah, that they thought some upstart little religion off in the far reaches of the empire that was a twist on an older religion they were used to dealing with was not a big deal. These things happened constantly back then. There was always a new punk somewhere proclaiming some new prophesy or claiming to have a direct link to god or the truth.

The romans were also used to dealing with a wide range of religious beliefs among the widely varied peoples they ruled over, and foreign cults/religions existed and were practiced even in rome, some more openly than others. Julius Caesar allowed the **** to openly practice in rome.

So, to the romans, they likely just viewed it as judaism 2.0, some new take on that weird religion those other people practice.. Think nothing of it.

[Effective]

I think of it this way. Even if God exists. I wouldn't want to worship someone who's so insecure he requires your praise in order to get through the day. And then goes ahead and leaves thousands to die from starving in poverty who then proceed to straight to hell since they aren't of that particular religion.


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Sorry. I don't worship scumbags. No offense intended.

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Firefly

Your first part is correct, but the last bit is not. Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus was crucified or thirty years or even seventy years later, the fact is they were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses by someone who directly recorded their testimony.

I don't want to disagree too much with you here, but, while not impossible for some the gospels to be written by the historical figures themselves, it is very unlikely many are... Some were certainly written second hand, as dictation at best (John, likely written around 80-95, which would be a long lifespan today) and others were written from further removed (Luke and Act's preference contain statements regarding witness accounts being handed down from others).

In any case:
All portions were certainly subject to both translation error and substantial editing to get anywhere near modern forms. Calling the Bible a truthful, trustworthy or accurate historical document is a humongous stretch in the light of that. If you could somehow find and verify original documents, you might be able to claim they were accurate to some degree.

Right. It's a theory. Which proves, by the fact that it is a theory, that it does not have enough proof to demonstrate that it is a fact.
So why do people believe it as if it is a fact?

That is not what the terminology means.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/ provides a good description in the context of evolution.

Theories are explanations for Laws (those are "Facts") that have been upheld by observation. In many cases we know that they aren't the true answer. The common example is gravity:
It's a thing that happens, there is no denying that the phenomenon exits, it is a fact, it is a Law. People often say Newton's gravitational theory is wrong...but that's not really true, it works very well. Newton's theory falls out of Einstein's theory when the right conditions are met. When we finally get a theory of everything, Einstein's theory and Newtons theory will likely be simplifications or derivations of that model (model and theory are often sort of interchangeable).

With in this you run into the singular reason religion's fantastic elements should never be relied upon as a decision making tool or method to produce some kind of interaction. It lacks any kind of observable predicted outcome, it cannot be tested. If something can't produce interactions with reality it doesn't exist in real terms.

Note, that I wouldn't discount some of religion's philosophical and ethical arguments. If Jesus said some good stuff, divinity doesn't matter.
The critical thing is: If he said some bad things, divinity shouldn't be a reason to listen.

[Lonehunter]

What ever happened to teenage Jesus? Anyone know if they're gonna make a prequel about it any time soon?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Malorn

What motivated Bin Ladin? The US association with Israel and the Palestinain conflict. His goal was to get the US to back down and stop supporting Israel. He used religion to coerce for political and economic (for the Palestinians) reasons.

This is incorrect. Bin Laden didn't give a shit about the Palestinians *UNLESS* it was as yet another means to condemn the US. *NOBODY* in the Middle East cares about the Palestinians because if they did, that whole area would turn into a hotbed of dissent until Israel gave up and said "Fine, give them this land." You'll notice that the Palestinians are refugees anywhere but Palestine. You don't see the Egyptians or Syrians or Jordanians bending over backwards to give up territory to the Palestinians. The average Arab in the Middle East views the Palestinian as a second-class citizen. They are like Mexican illegals to the Americans. They aren't even a real people, per se. The term "Palestinian" comes from the British Mandate for Palestine. Up until the mid-60s, they didn't really exist as a national body or identity. The people who identify as Palestinian are largely descended from converted Muslims in Ottoman Syria, former **** and Christians. Again, up until the mid-60s they just sort of identified as Arabs or Syrians. A significant number of Palestinians are Christian. Because of these two things, Bin Laden had no real reason to use them as anything more than a platform to rail against Israel and the US, and only when it suited him.

What motivated Bin Laden was two things: 1) the United States had a military presence in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that was too close to sacred ground. 2) The United States propped up petty dictators and tyrants in the Middle East and coddled them, allowing these Arab dictators to oppress Arabs.

[Malorn]

Meh.